Timothy Kerr, “Cleaning Up One Mess to Create Another: Duplicative Class Actions, Federal Courts’ Injunctive Power, and the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005,” 29 Hamline L. Rev. 218 (Spr. 2006).
Timothy Kerr has some pointed criticism for the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. “Ultimately, I argue that the Class Action Fairness Act will have undesirable effects that outweigh its potential as a partial solution to the specific problems of duplicative class actions,” he declares in the opening paragraph of his scholarly piece about the interrelationship between CAFA and the judiciary’s ability to tackle problems associated with duplicative litigation.
Kerr endeavors to outline the problems posed for the federal bench by duplicative class actions, and outlines particular concerns generated by Rule 23 and the Anti-Injunction Act. He addresses the tension between the Anti-Injunction Act and the federal abstention doctrine. Finally, he offers his suggested prescriptions for Congressional reforms that might allow state and federal actions to maintain parallel or sequential tracks. CAFA’s expansion of federal diversity jurisdiction, says Kerr, represents a “disproportionate” Congressional response to problems posed by duplicative actions. Kerr argues that “Congress should not focus on original diversity or removal jurisdiction, but should focus on the amendments to the Anti-Injunction Act or the Rules Enabling Act to allow the courts and rule-makers to respond in the most effective manner.”